Early graded coins and the "standard" vs. more recently graded coins.
keets
Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
There always seems to be talk that the grading "standards" have changed, that coins in the old holders were more strictly graded and things have become progressively more loose with the passage of time. Perhaps there is some truth to this, it just depends on who you're talking with and what series is being discussed. Overall, I wonder if this is really true or if a much simpler explanation may be the cause. I doubt that HRH would tell us that PCGS now grades an MS65 of 1987 an MS66(I think grades for circs are better defined so they don't really apply in this case), though he might. More logically, as time has passed and more coins are seen by PCGS for a specific series or date/mm of a series it seems that the graders would have a better understanding of a specific grade so that it seems the "standard" has changed rendering the rattlers as undergraded. Perhaps I am wrong and things move in the other direction, but I have never thought of grading or a grade as being a static thing carved in stone.
What does anyone else think, how has it seemed to have worked for you??
Al H.
What does anyone else think, how has it seemed to have worked for you??
Al H.
0
Comments
Eric
I just wish the descriptive terms Gem and Choice and so on were either used evenly or abandoned for pure numbers as on the slab. The mint website leads to the ANA website which has Choice as MS65, when everyone is calling 65 Gem. If the adjectives/nomenclature are simply not important, why the change? If you changed...well. I remember the early edition of the ANA grading guide with its grey, red/blue hard cover and I believe Select 63 and so on was there. I do not recall what is printed in the books these days but online they have retained Choice MS65. As a result of this terminology-transition, there are literally more "Gems" in name now...and who doesn't want a Gem? Years ago, when Gem was 67 and there was Select 63, it was said most all MS coins would grade closer to 60 than a (once) theoretical Perfect 70. I might not have marked a line in the shifting sands and made a 70 - but as 2 or so points is mentioned as normal variance and not cause for redress and this is all opinion anyway perhaps it really doesn't matter. The coins aren't changing (usually) so something else is or has. If the numerical system is a challenge to a new collector, and advice is often "buy Gem BU!", there could be confusion. The A, B and C(ac) system might not be readily apparent to a new collector - the existence of stickers demonstrates this and additional opinions would not be sought; this can all lead to several purchases of B or even C coins before reading about CAC or catching on, as it were. If I were a new collector and I read two or three grading guides and saw the different adjectives I might be a little turned around. Some local B&M's still just write "Gem BU" on the 2x2 - which Gem? 65? Or Choice 65? Or Superb Gem 67? Will the new collector know to ask?
Well, just look at the coin. It is the best all around advice. Just my weary Sunday morning response and .02
EDIT to add and bold: That poll I ran a while back showed most don't think year, MM, strike and so on affect the grade of every issue individually so...
One day it could be all white, all Genuine (or not) and very generic with no color guarantees on anything. That will really facilitate sight unseen buying.
Suddenly there are more Gems? IDK. The % of "Gems" in a bag of a certain date and MM will not change over time, unless the word or grade changes IMHO.
as to the graders themselves. Is each grader familiar with every different denomination, series by
date/MM/strike, etc. or is there a specialist for each?
Every denomination has its own "particulars" within the series and I simply cannot imagine any
grader (or even a dealer) that would have this vast amount of knowledge in their head.
So this leaves me assuming that any submission I may make will be graded by general or limited
knowledge of the coin(s). I just recently had very disappointing grades given to four FS Jeffersons.
I've been involved with this series and nothing but for decades and know very well the posted requirements
for every MS grade. Even when I asked for (and got, TYVM) a review, they only added a + to the grade. Even
so, the difference in value for the grades given and what they should have got was $1300. to $1800.!
I know, everybody can spout the same type of story. But again, I was using their own requirements for
grades expecting them to do the same. Was the grader unfamiliar with Jeffersons or is a MS65 a MS65
no matter the denomination/series? Is this a "grading standard" method? I don't know...
just my 2 cents worth.
that time. Or at least that is my perception. I think my submissions would bear that out.
...anyone remember back in the day when this was available?
grader (or even a dealer) that would have this vast amount of knowledge in their head.
I guess it would surprise you to know that one of the respondents to this thread could probably accomplish the task you doubt.
I'm not sure I understand the original question posed by this thread. It seems to be that as TPGs see and learn more about coins, grades get looser.
This seems to be a slightly different reasoning for gradeflation that in the past which attributed the change to the actions of a certain dealers among other things.
<< <i>I guess it would surprise you to know that one of the respondents to this thread could probably accomplish the task you doubt. >>
No Al, it wouldn't surprise me...for a forum member to be able to do so. But a TPG grader? That is the
group I was mainly referencing. A dealer is a different animal entirely! Dealers are graders by necessity,
graders aren't dealers as a second job. (Or are they????)